Enjoy The Weekend

A bit rushed today ... so let's see - the NY Times fixed a poll while a Rasmussen one seems more accurate. Not much news there. That and more available via Memeorandum. The Left is still getting off on the Justice Department nonsense that isn't exactly captivating the rest of the country.

Thompson gave a speech in CT and said what? I get it, Fred - but you might want to fire the drama coach. And theatrically speaking, the stage managing of an alleged eventual announcement is getting to be enough.

"We're living in a nation beset by suicidal maniacs," Thompson said, launching into criticism of the immigration bill.

Speaking just for conservative me, Thompson has genuine emotional appeal. But so did Bush eight years ago. I want competency this time around. And while Fred may demonstrate that he has it, my instincts tell me Romney does. I've been predicting a showdown between those two for some time and haven't backed away from that prediction for next year - given the field as we currently assume it to be.

I'm down for the GWOT - but claiming the US is beset by suicidal maniacs as a criticism of immigration? Sorry, Fred, Hollywood produces stars and some of them have consumed too many drugs. Lighten up there, guy - I don't think we need a drama queen as the next POTUS. Bush has given conservatives all the drama we need for awhile with the tragicomedy of his next to last year.

Bush can turn things around and exit on a better footing, Reagan did it after Iran-Contra. And Thompson is sure to sharpen his message. And FWIW, I think Romney continues his workman-like effort toward the nomination that may eventually get him there. But obviously, it's still far too early to predict almost anything in that regard.

Have a good weekend, folks!

Comments

[BillT]

I'm curious. I have a good deal of respect for Romney, having watched him work his way into the race. But I wonder what, given his fairly recent transition to traditional conservative politics, makes your gut go with him?

Thompson has "IT." And I challenge you to consider Governor Romney's campaign and tell me it's not "managed" or "crafted." I don't go for the "my guy's more polished than yours because my guy doesn't look polished" thing. I think when the debates are on and the cards are on the table, we'll have some clear choices to make next spring. And I also think either of these guys is a good bet for the GOP.

[seekeronos]

My gut instinct tells me that Fred is the best choice for what little chance there might be for that ponderous, cancer-ridden pachyderm called the GOP to see a President in any part of the 21st century beyond Bush-43.

"Suicidal Manics" might be a tad too strong and a tad melodramatic, but it balances better than trying to pretend that there isn't something amiss in how the GOP has largely screwed up over the past four-odd years at the federal level. Mind you, my local Republican candidates have mostly met my expectations of sound and even godly (in some cases) government.

I can't say that I have much faith left in the GOP to produce any men of character or of sound, conservative American values any more than the DNC could. The unmitigated greed and personal pursuit of power is all that seems to count for anything in DC.

As for Romney, I keep hearing this news about his ability to suddenly reverse course, even "flip-flop" on key issues. Anyone hear anything of that? :)

[Phoenix]

Seek,

Why does the GOP have to produce? Maybe that's what Thompson is doing - producing himself to spite the GOP. I like that, but I wish he'd get on with it. As for Romney, I have an instinctual, screeching-stop reaction in my mind when I see a smooth operator like him. The Force is with him and the magneto-field pulses hold me back. I like Guiliani for now. He doesn't seem like a Greedy-Guts GOP Guy.

[seekeronos]

Guiliani, despite his somewhat sketchy stance on social issues... would be ruthless as a POTUS.

Perhaps, too much so. That also raises me eyebrows a bit, as in how far will he go to get his way? I'm talking about the total package that comes as Rudy, and not just the parts where it would count to be ruthless (as touching the GWOT, or corruption reform).

The flip side though, he is a police-statist to the core... and I do not think he would hesitate to confiscate the average honest hardworking citizen's firearms if given a chance. Despite what he says now.

Someone told me once that the Antichrist, when he shows up on the world stage (or "if", assuming that the interpretations of prophecy regarding the Antichrist/False Prophet axis of evil is right in that they represent two individual people and not institutions)...

...when the Antichrist appears, he would be so incredibly slick as to deceive even believing Christians and the whole entire world. The more popular interpretations of this prophecy hold that this Antichrist will rise out of either Russia or the European Union, and will be some kind of wunderkind who will bring peace to the M.E., make a one-world gov't out of the disfunctional U.N., and cause everyone to worship him as a god in the rebuilt Jewish temple in Jerusalem about 3.5 years into his reign as unitary world ruler.

I'm not saying Rudy is the Antichrist by any means... but his ruthlessness as a US Attorney in NYC and later as Mayor is an indication... I'm not saying, but I'm just saying, y'know?

[Phoenix]

Well, I know what you're saying from your very descriptive view.... wow. :)

The thing is, Guiliani was never 'fettered' by a balance of power before, and I think that would reign in any of those more aberrant traits you fear might surface. After Clinton and Bush, we need a take-no-prisoners kind of guy. That would be a man who doesn't cave to PC. I might even take up religion if we could get that!

[LOL]

I don't think Romney will win it. But right now who knows? The Republican candidate is a tough guess. The Republican candidate might win with only a plurality of the Republican electorate, the field is so open.

[Cindi]

When is the election? heh

[Buzzy]

Rudy as Prez scares me to no end, he won't care about the desires of the people who put him in office. I remember that he was almost universally hated in NYC till his defining moment during 9/11. To me he's another hawkish RINO, socially liberal, amnesty loving, gun hating, big business loving and voter neutral. He's George Bush, only much worse IMHO. He won't be getting my vote, I'm done with voting in someone I don't trust only because I distrust his opponents worse.

I would vote for Fred and would vote for Mitt as well as Hunter or Tancredo but Giuliani or McCain... forget it.

Personally I'm afraid that Bush's amnesty plan has so fragmented the Republican party that it doesn't matter who we run. He may have just handed the election to the Democrats no matter what.

[Purple Avenger]

"He may have just handed the election to the Democrats no matter what."

The democrats are working very hard at fixing that problem.

[Buzzy]

Maybe so PA, but with the Bush amnesty bill 2008 is going to be the year of massive voter fraud and those votes aren't going to the GOP. No wonder the DEMs are fighting any attempt to require actual voter ID for voting.

We've reached the point where moral relativism has taken hold of too many of our politicians from both parties and I'm seriously doubting that there is any path back to where we began. I'm 50 years old and it has become clear to me that my country will be unrecognizable to me by the time I die and not in any progressive positive way.

I also think that the Democrat voters are much more liable to vote for their candidates than a whole lot of Republicans are right now. I'm honestly expecting Hillary to take the Presidency by a landslide in 2008 and unless the GOP stops kicking its base voters in the teeth every few days there might not be a viable Republican party for decades afterwards.

[LOL]

Hillary does seem to be the favorite

[jong]

It's certainly curious your discussion about the potential republican candidate doesn't mention Iraq even once. Unless things change dramatically, Iraq will be the core issue with the republican candidate facing some unpleasant choices - continue to support Bush's policies, which probably guarantees losing the election - or find a way to keep the republican base happy but not alienate the larger electorate, perhaps a "Secret Plan to End the War". But the public is not going to elect a candidate who doesn't offer an Iraq exit strategy.

[Some dude...]

"But so did Bush eight years ago. I want competency this time around."

Oh, please, get over yourself. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative and was an open borders Texas gov. What has changed? Nothing. He even campaigned on giving Pres. Drugs for Seniors. So, please, don't give me this Bush isn't Conservative enough garbage. He governed exactly as he said. As for competency, the only thing Bush has been truly incompetent about is facing up to his detractors.

So much of the rest is just politically motivated nonsense, like all the Katrina criticism, and yes, to a large part Iraq.

Or are you saying the handling of Iraq has been incompetent? Again: oh, please! Saddam and Co. are dead, the Taliban is dead and both countries are on their way to democratic govts. Only in 5 years and with minimal casualties. Of course tons of mistakes were made. It's a war. No time for hindsight; everyone goes in blindly, quickly making decisions, hoping they turn out for the best and then you move on to other decisions. This is the first war under a microscope. Every single sneeze and fart is instantly posted on the web and then dissected ad nauseum on 24 news services. Can we wring our hands just a little bit more about Abu Ghraib? Can we? Can we? Just a little bit more?

But I know, I know. Iraq is a DISASTER! A DISASTER, I TELL YOU. A few dozen people get blown up daily. Definitely not good. Definitely needs to stop. But a disaster? Hardly. I remember 98% of this country pooping in the pants after 9-11 waiting for more attacks, more carnage. And here we are five years later wanting to get out of Iraq because progress hasn't been fast enough. Hey, quick, someone call off the Italian Renaissance, not everyone appreciates the Sistine Chapel, and those flying machine drawings, why no room for in-flight cocktails? Faster, faster, faster, the last commercial break is coming up.

A disaster, as compared to what other war? As compared to what other Democratic M.E. paradise?

We haven't been attacked for 5 years and AQ has been seriously dismantled, and it's all: "Oooh, so incompetent. Worse this, worse that, we can't win, we should have done this, if I was president, I would have done that....." Oh, brother, what a bunch of armchair chief executives this country has.

How about the economy? Does Bush get any credit? I mean, after all he had the worst job creation record since Herbert Hoover? So can I say that Bush is #1 when it comes to record low unemployment or stock market highs?

Thompson's not going to run. He sounds good BECAUSE HE'S AN ACTOR, for crying out loud. It's easy to sound sooooo wonderfully conservative when you're alone in a room with a camera reading from a script. But how about when you're facing a hostile Congress and anti-Con press and Socialist 'Intl. Community'?

As for Romney: he's already toyed with the idea of Socialized Medicine in MA. So in 2010 when he starts yip-yapping like Hillary with better thighs, don't say you weren't warned.

One final pt.: Did you ever think that it's not the Pols who are the problem, but us, the voters, the electorate? How many "conservatives" went nuts over the BS Dubai Ports thing. What an effing travesty. How many cons. were willing to throw Bush over on that subject when they had no clue that allowing foreign companies to provide services is SOP for the U.S.? Govt. Does anyone here know the Military has Dubai-based companies to provide food services. OF COURSE NOT! http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1171773,00.html

As for Immigration Amnesty, okay, staunch defenders of the Constitution, tell me, unless we dismantle the welfare state, just how will 12 million plus illegals be deported? Should we have the cops go door to door? Does anyone here take the time and effort to find out if local businesses that you patronize hire illegals? Me, neither. So stop acting like someone else created the problem and someone else needs to do the cleaning up.

Yeah, it must be wonderful to be an armchair CiC. You guys are the same clowns who yell at the TV screen for (name of professional athlete) to work harder, because after all, you guys know how easy it is to play pro ball.

Happy Memorial Day!

[LOL]

Hate to burst your bubble, but in Iraq about 50-100 Iraqis die on average every day due to bombings and shootings. The number can reach as high as 300. But I guess that many Iraqis is only a "few dozen" since they count for less in the compassionate conservative video game. A very conservative estimate is that about 70,000 have died. If Iraq isn't all that bad, how come you aren't serving over there?

[Phoenix]

LOL,

How many Jews died in WWII? How many people died under Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? Get a reality grip....

Iraqis 'count for less' ? Have you ever heard that uttered here or by any conservative? By any person?

"...how come you aren't serving over there?" What does this have to do with his right to talk? You don't know that he hasn't served.

[templar knight]

LOL, who cares if he has served, or you, or anyone? Whether YOU serve or not, you still have the same rights as those who have. Have you served? Do you think that only conservatives who have served have freedom of speech? It appears so. That's an odd position for a liberal, if you really were one. You are a totalitarian posing as a liberal. As are most of you Leftists.

[LOL]

I don't remember calling the government to lock him up over speaking his mind. I just asked a simple question. I implied nothing more, and yet, look at how defensive all the cons get. Cons get so defensive when you post that simple question, it's too amusing.

[LOL]

Wait so leftists are totalitarian. This is great.

The group that opposes guantanamo, wants fewer wars, fewer detentions. But if a party has a leading candidate saying "Double guantanamo!" that is not the totalitarian party, that is the party of Freedom. Liberals are want to "surrender" but also are "totalitarian" Umm how does that make sense?

Jumping from me asking a simple, if difficult, question, to me saying he should not be allowed to speak at all is a moronic non-sequitur that only RiehlWorldWingnuts are capable of. Of course, people like Cindi and other commenters here can advocate for widescale bombing of Iraq, Iran, and Syria, which would result in thousands if not millions dead and not be totalitarian.

Let's stop using this word incorrectly. Totalitarian regimes in history: Nazi Germany, and USSR. These countries used torture, massive bombings, invasions of foreign countries, punishing without trial or any kind of habeas corpus, and these are all wingnut platforms, But it's the left who's totalitarian.

Right

[templar knight]

Yep, totalitarian. Big government, running everything, doing everything, providing everything. Those are the positions of the Left, and these positions are totalitarian. Why don't you educate yourself by taking a course in Political Theory, or doing a little reading other than Leftist literature. And you forgot Pol Pot, Mao, Ho-Chi-Min, Saddam Hussein, and perhaps a few others.

[templar knight]

And your fake outrage about the "liberal meme of serving in Iraq" is comical. You are just another "liberal goof" who would be a millionaire if you were only half as smart as you think you are.

[templar knight]

As for countries who used torture, massive bombings, punishing without trial, suspension of habeus corpus, and invasions of foreign nations, I suppose Britain and the US did none of these things in WWII. You, Mr. LOL, are an idiot. Go study some fricking history, dingbat.

[Phoenix]

"If Iraq isn't all that bad, how come you aren't serving over there?"

"Jumping from me asking a simple, if difficult, question, to me saying he should not be allowed to speak at all is a moronic non-sequitur that only RiehlWorldWingnuts are capable of."

LOL,

The question isn't difficult. It is simply illogical. It is, itself, a non-sequiter. What does it have to do with the validity of what he says or that he said it?

Here you go: "These countries used torture, massive bombings, invasions of foreign countries, punishing without trial or any kind of habeas corpus, and these are all wingnut platforms,..."

How can you say that? Have you ever been a wingnut? <---- No logic. See?

[LOL]

Hmm... it wasn't a non-sequitur Phoenix. Let me follow you through the logic.

The above wingnut made an argument that Iraq was not all that bad of a place, and that the mission has been successful overall. He drastically underestimated the real violence there. His argument is basically that Iraq only has a few deaths every day. If it isn't so bad, why isn't he over there? i.e. Perhaps it's actually worse than his arguments claim, and they are mere sophistry that he doesn't even truly believe.

[LOL]

Guys, you can't have people in your tent who criticize "Rationality" without a word of criticism from their peers and then pretend to be logical people.

Wingnuts, especially the denizens of these boards, are an exceptionally ignorant and illogical people. And it is partially because you choose to be so.

[Some dude...]

"If Iraq isn't all that bad, how come you aren't serving over there?"

Iraq isn't a DISASTER, I said. Yeah, it's bad. It's a war. They're all bad. But Jeezus H. Keeerist, you'd think Iraq was some sort of Intergalatic Battle of the Bulge the way the Media and Lefties and discontented Republicans portray it. Jihadists, both in WORD and DEED, prove time and time again they want to destroy the West. Iraq has presented MINOR, yes MINOR setbacks. Minor. So the solution is to leave? Give up? Or just endlessly bitch and moan?

You were promised nothing rosy about Iraq. So shut up already, will ya? The Prez said constantly it was going to be long and risky and rebuilding it was the true battle (see the famed Mission Accomplished speech for one example).

Has there been no progress made? How's this for progress? I am now 100% certain that the Iraqi govt. has no WMD, that terrorists groups have no LEGITIMATE, GOVT. SANCTIONED HOME in Iraq, and I'm 100% sure that Iraq's govt. will neither attack the US and will come to our aid (someday) when we need it. That sounds like progress to me.

I'm 100% certain that Iraq will never again invade Kuwait to steal its oil; never set the oil wells on fire; never fire upon US planes; never scam the UN in some sort of oil for food swindle; never keep secret its WMD programs (if it ever gets them); never provide $$$ to Palestinian suicide bombers; never give $$$ to Abu Sayyaf (AQ's Asian arm). Do I have to go on? Do I?

Yet, GWB is incompetent and the war is a failure. So let's go home and then elect a REAL CONSERVATIVE in '08, just like Reagan, you know that UberConservative who pardoned all the illegals back in the 80s. (I actually laugh at loud when I hear: "Bush's amnesty bill betrays the Republican tradition on illegal immigration." So who's up for going door-to-door asking for immigration papers? How about we just start another Govt. police force to do it, huh? Who's with me?)

Can we all just stopping bitching and moaning? The Left to stop endlessly prattling on about how pulling troops out of Iraq and stationing them in Fort Bragg, NC or Camp Pendleton or Dicklick, KY will somehow stop the advance of Jihadism?

And the Right to stop bitching and moaning about how no elected Conservative is ever conservative enough? Edmund Burke or John Locke or WhoFreakingEverBarryGoldwaterGotHisInspirationFrom will not be running anytime soon. So deal with it.

I'll stop bitching now. Enjoy the Holiday, brought to you by the Troops....

[Purple Avenger]

"but in Iraq about 50-100 Iraqis die on average every day due to bombings and shootings."

You want to abandon them completely, so why does that number, even if it were 5,000/day mean anything?

[Buzzy]

They want to abandon Iraq to 5k a day, maybe 5k an hour dying so they can go fight THEIR own war in Darfur but honestly they only want to bash Bush over the head with Iraq for political gain and if they inherit the war when they take office in 2009 they won't have the balls to surrender. The blood would be on their hands then, the ramp up in terror attacks would be on their hands then. They don't even have the balls to cut funding or call a vote to withdraw their approval for the war.

These kids don't understand war at all. They wring their hands over 100 Iraqis dying to terrorism when we say 3,000 die in one day in the act of terrorism that started this war. They ignore the fact that Saddam himself had over 100,000 Kurds killed in just a few days and during his 24 years in power killed another 500,000 of his own countrymen in one way or another. How many does that break down to a day. Hundreds of mass graves have been uncovered and more are being found all the time. Some hold 10,000 bodies.

They freak out at 100 troops dying a month when we had 155 7th Cav troopers die in one day in November 1967 in Vietnam. We lost 26,000 men on Iwo Jima in just a few days in WWII. During our Civil War in just a few days alone at Gettysburg the Union lost about 110,000 men and the Confederates about 94,000. As an old warrior I know that war is ugly and horrible but I know that the consequences of not taking war to the monsters that come to power on this earth is even worse. I've visited the Nazi death camps where 6 million Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals died in Germany, Poland etc. and I've walked among some of the 8 Million Cambodians who died after we surrendered in Vietnam. I hope I never have to walk among killing fields for the Kurds in Iraq. Saddam killed about 10% of their 4 million numbers in 1988 and I fear the Shi'a would happily finish the job he started.

LOL, would you have objected this strenuously to our stopping Hitler crying that Nazi Germany hadn't attacked us? Would you have cared so little for the millions of Jews being gassed and thrown into the ovens? Would you have demanded we withdraw from WWII after taking casualties at Guadalcanal or North Africa? Would you have been one of the voices calling for us to ignore the rape of Nanking in 1937?

On this Memorial day I'm remembering the men who saw the threats not only to their own nation and family but of tyrants who were murdering others far away and laid down their lives to stop the slaughter and enslavement of people they would never know.

[Cindi]

fuck you lol. FREEDOM HAS A PRICE.

As an American, GOD forbid I should ever have to face a life as these people in Iraq have, I would pray someone would pay attention, someone would come to our aide. Should that aide result in death of a family member, my own child, so be it. Like I said, freedom has a price. Thank GOD, spineless bastards such as you are not left to handle that task.

Today we remember those who gave the ultimate. Who are you willing to lay your life down for LOL?

[southdakotaboy]

Hey LOL liberals are all for Socialism. Remeber that it was called the National Socialist Workers Party you might want to remember that next time you start claim conservatives are bad, you libs think Hitler's business plan wasn't that bad so you are taking pages right out of his playbook.

[seekeronos]

Today's Liberals = 1940s "America Firsters" with a bend toward socialism slightly to the left of Stalin.

For "Some Dude" :

What do you suppose should be done about the immigration issue? If deportation (a very labour intensive task) is not the answer, then what?

Status Quo? We will be a majority Hispanic nation and a culture inside of 40 years, probably sooner with most immigrants having 3-6 anchor babies per unit. Much of the US southwest is already de facto Mexican territory, if the population numbers correctly. Heck, I won't be surprised if we see calls from the MECHistas and other fringe Hispanic separatist groups calling for a dual-citizenship zone or at least a reversion of the Treaty of Hildago Guadalupe, or maybe even restoring the old royal Spanish land grants to create a quasi-state for the Aztlan nutters.

It will be just like Old Mexico, complete with a Spanish-style patron class (Democrat elites) and Clientele (the new Mexican/OTM majority).

[templar knight]

As we now watch Chavez, the hero of the Left, allow "freedom of speech" in Venezuela. What say YOU, LOL?

[Angel In America]

"Remeber that it was called the National Socialist Workers Party you might want to remember that next time you start claim conservatives are bad, you libs think Hitler's business plan wasn't that bad so you are taking pages right out of his playbook."

Wasn't the Nazis' primary platform going around Germany and beating up the communists? Didn't Hitler blame the commies for burning the Rietchstag right before he consolidated dictorial power? Wasn't Mussolini (the right-winger's wet dream of an authoritarian leader) a close ally of Hitler in rounding up and imprisoning/executing socialist rebels? Didn't Fransisco Franco - another Hitler ally in Spain - lauch protracted campaigns against the communists in his home country, slaughtering farmers and union workers en masse whom he suspected of communist ties? Wasn't the Nazi Party, along with the Mussolini Blackshirts, and the Franco supports all major industrialists and aristocrats - people with a vested interest in fighting socialism and communism in their native countries?

Perhaps your analogy would work better if you referenced Mao or Stalin. Or, I don't know, Lenin. You know, actual socialists?

Don't stay up too late thinking about all this. I know facts and history present a real problem for wingers. After all, Nazi has the word "socialist" in it. Kinda like how Libertarian has the first five letters of Liberal in it. So what do I know, right?

[Angel in my Underpants]

" After all, Nazi has the word "socialist" in it. Kinda like how Libertarian has the first five letters of Liberal in it."

Not quite sure how this works, Angel. You've made an analogy here that I can't quite grok.

Well. Don't you know. There it is - "...facts present a real problem for wingers." You must be a winger. Cool.

[seekeronos]

I'll take a stab at it:

She (the first Angel) thinks that National Socialists are not socialist... that somehow, the name of the National ___Sozialistische___ Deutsche Arbeiters Partei (NSDAP)or in English: National Socialist German Worker's Party was not in fact, represent and implement a form of socialism in German as the Third Reich.

Socialism comes in various flavours, but all such varieties are still poisonous: it need not come swathed in copious amounts of red drapery or with a hammer or sickle, but it usually comes with tyranny, police-state suppression of individual and civil rights, privation of the most basic life necessities, and at its worst, massive loss of life. Just like Nazi Germay, Imperial Japan, North Korea, the USSR through most of the 20th century, and the People's Republic of China.

[LOL]

Yes, Hitler helped fund Franco's group in Spain to fight the leftists. Hitler was not a leftist. He was on the right, and firmly opposed the leftists who had been gaining power in Europe ever since 1848.

But again, wingers don't live in reality, so none of this matters to them.

For the latest example of wingers' worldview colliding in embarrassing fashion against reality: http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/6083.html

Now wingers. The left can be surrenderers or it can be totalitarians. But it can't be both. Your arguments become parodies of themselves when you try to have it both ways. But most of you wingers, sadly, are too stupid to get this.

[LOL]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism

here's a book i suggest you read, so as to brush up on some history TK, as you are woefully ignorant. The only totalitarian regimes were Nazi Germany and USSR. Other regimes were fascist, and came close, but never really achieved the total control of the former ones.

[LOL]

Nazism was the Right:

"Terror as the counterpart of propaganda played a greater role in Nazism than in Communism. The Nazis did not strike at prominent figures as had been done in the earlier wave of political crimes in Germany (the murder of Rathenau and Erzberger); instead, by killing small socialist functionaries or influential members of opposing parties, they attempted to prove to the population the dangers involved in mere membership. This kind of mass terror, which still operated on a comparatively small scale, increased steadily because neither the police nor the courts seriously prosecuted political offenders on the so-called Right." (344, from the aforementioned book)

Nazis exterminated leftists just as they exterminated Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals. To think that the Nazis called themselves "socialists" for any other reason than cynical posturing to appeal to the masses is foolishness.

On why wingnuts and modern conservatism more closely resemble totalitarianism: "In the center of the movement, as the motor that swings it into motion, sits the Leader. He is separated from the elite formation by an inner circle of the initiated who spread around him an aura of impenetrable mystery which corresponds to his 'intangible preponderance.' ... 'the will of the Fuehrer is the Party's law,' and when its whole hierarchy has been efficiently trained for a single purpose--swiftly to communicate the will of the Leader to all ranks. ... The supreme task of the Leader is to impersonate the double function characteristic of each layer of the movement--to act as the magic defense of the movement against the outside world; and at the same time, to be the direct bridge by which the movement is connected with it." (373-374)

"Like a foreign conqueror, the totalitarian dictator regards the natural and industrial riches of each country, including his own, as a source of loot and a means of preparing the next step of aggressive expansion." (417)

"The chief difference between despotic and the totalitarian secret police lies in the difference between the "suspect" and the "objective enemy." The latter is defined by the policy of the government and not by his own desire to overthrow it. He is never an individual whose dangerous thoughts must be provoked or whose past justifies suspicion, but a 'carrier of tendencies' like the carrier of a disease. Practically speaking, the totalitarian ruler proceeds like a man who persistently insults another man until everybody knows that the latter is his enemy, so that he can, with some plausibility, go and kill him in self-defense." (423-424)

An excellent read if you're up for it. I doubt any of you have the patience for a book like this though.

[Bill Adkins]

NSDAP is an version of fascism, the right wing of the Italian Mussolini reign. Fascism comes in various flavors, i.e., Republifascists, but it usually comes with tyranny, police-state suppression of individual and civil rights, privation of the most basic life necessities, and at its worst, massive loss of life. Just like Nazi Germay, Imperial Japan, Argentina, Chile -- you see, extremists and police states are seen by the Republifascists as models for their vision of America's future. "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests inferior to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism." See, Bush and the Republifascists are rapidly degrading the constitution, promoting racial purity, attacking hispanics, and fomenting a fake war on terror, thus, the Republifascists are dead-on examples of the definition here in quotes. But the Republifascists are even more insidious, they are 'Neo-fascists." "Neo-fascism is the ideology of political movements that emerged after the Second World War that display significant elements of fascism. The term neo-fascist may be claimed by groups that express a specific admiration for Benito Mussolini and Fascist Italy. This usually includes nationalism, nativism, anti-communism and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy."

[Fred Beloit]

People who tie in insults with the names of groups they oppose, people like Bill Adkins, destroy any credibility they may hope to achieve before they begin to make their arguments. This is one of the signs of propaganda. Next comes the Big Lie. In Adkins' case it is the following: "...you see, extremists and police states are seen by Republifascists [sic] as models for their vision of America's future." Assuming he means conservatives and/or Republicans, it is not clear because people like Adkins can't make simple distinctions, this statement is vicious foolishness. I wonder if he can give us an example of any body on this blog or in the current Republican party ever commenting that they want the U.S. to become like Nazi Germany or fascist Italy.

[Angry Red Badger]

"People who tie in insults with the names of groups they oppose, people like Bill Adkins, destroy any credibility they may hope to achieve before they begin to make their arguments."

I'll say. If someone were to run around refering to our Majority Leader in the Senate as Harry "Land Shark" Reid or label the majority party in America Defeatocrats, I think that person would lose all credibility in his arguments.

"...this statement is vicious foolishness. I wonder if he can give us an example of any body on this blog or in the current Republican party ever commenting that they want the U.S. to become like Nazi Germany or fascist Italy."

Last I checked, this blog's blogger and his message-board supports have stated on numerous occations that they support domestic wiretapping, indefinite detainment of a US Citizen without charge, torture of foreigners, arrest and imprisonment of political opponents (Reid and Pelosi) for legislating against the will of the reigning President, execution of foreign heads of state, rank politicization of the justice system (USAs must serve only the pleasure of the President, and not the rule of law, after all), and, of course, the rape, theft, and murder of civilians in a foreign country during "time of war". I don't think these particular traits are unique to Nazi Germany or fascist Italy, but they are certainly ideologies shared by the 30s era fascists and the '00 era Republicans. That the Republicans want to kill Muslims rather than Jews doesn't make me feel much better.

[templar knight]

All I have to say to you, LOL, is tell it to the millions of dead in Communist China, Communist Cambodia, Communist Vietnam, Baathist Iraq, and need I go on?

And, of course, you revisionists have attempted to change history, but Nazism and Communism are both totalitarian, basically the same thing. To say one is right and the other is left is no description of either. They are both totalitarian. Exactly the opposite of what a conservative thinks, and apparently exactly what a liberal thinks.

I suggest YOU take a course in Political Theory, LOL, just as I have. I don't need to read your stupid propaganda. And wikipedia is edited by you dumb asses. For God's sake, take your stupid ass back to Kos and defend Chavev, YOUR HERO.

[templar knight]

And as hard as it is to believe, Bill Adkins is even more stupid than LOL. Do you really believe that vomit you write, Bill, or is it that you are a convervative posing as a liberal in an attempt to make liberals look bad? If this is the case, man, you are succeeding beyond all expectations!

[Fred Beloit]

Why, Angry, you have just reconfirmed what I thought was the case. Someone from the Left would come here to obfuscate, blur, and twist my comment. Thanks. I don't recall anybody here supporting domestic wiretapping (American to American in America), "torture" (see recently liberated terrorist torture handbook for what torture really is) arrest of Reid and Pelosi other than in jest. The stuff about rape and murder, politicizing of the Justice Department (duh), and the other nonsense all point to you as nowinker. Someone who confuses taking a photo of a terrorist's naked rear end is on a par with gouging out someone's eye? You need to seek professional help with that in my opinion.

[templar knight]

As for your book, the description of totalitarianism that I read would seem to back up my assertions, but why argue with you in the first place? You are a vile person who only comes here to insult, just like the rest of the liberal trolls who post here. GTH!

[Angry Red Badger]

"Someone who confuses taking a photo of a terrorist's naked rear end is on a par with gouging out someone's eye? You need to seek professional help with that in my opinion."

And the photo of the hooded prisoner hooked up to a car battery? Or the prisoner being mauled by a dog? I do appreciate how American forces are expected to behave no better than a bunch of farm-boys and street urchins with AKs. Way to raise the bar and win those hearts and minds.

"Thanks. I don't recall anybody here supporting domestic wiretapping (American to American in America), "torture" (see recently liberated terrorist torture handbook for what torture really is) arrest of Reid and Pelosi other than in jest. The stuff about rape and murder, politicizing of the Justice Department (duh), and the other nonsense all point to you as nowinker."

This confirms it! Nowinger is actually Daine Perino of the Washington Post. And the editor staff of the NYT. And the entire staff of Knight Ridder. Hell, he may even have connections with everyone from CNN to ABC News, who reported extensively on domestic wiretapping and spying on Americans within America, extensive torture at Gitmo, Abu Garab, and the secret prisons in Eastern Europe and Russia not to mention the blossoming Gonzo scandal as well as the various Iraq attrocities committed by US-backed Iraqi policemen, US-Armed anti-Sunni militias, and a handful of our very own servicemen who finally snapped under the pressure at Hadditha.

But yeah. None of that happened in the Riehl World, so I guess its a non-issue, right? This is all one vast left-wing conspiracy to make Bush look bad? And its all nowinger's evil plan to get you to vote Democrat so they can raise your taxes.

*sigh* I mean, it's a free country. Believe whatever you want.

[Fred Beloit]

"Or a prisoner being mauled by a dog." You must mean yyy, a prisoner being snarled at by a dog, which our forces go through regularly in training and have since shortly after the Korean war. I went through it myself, no permanent damage to my ears from snarling.

[Angry Red Badger]

They hook you up to car batteries too?

[Fred Beloit]

That's it? That's what's left? Car batteries? Out of all the REAL torture, the beheadings, the murders, the kidnappings; you come up with one photo of a car batteries. Why the soldiers who did this are in prison today! What about the enemy? See, your priorities are warped. You have my sympathy. This appears to be near the end. Adieu.

[seekeronos]

Yikes.

For Bill Adkins/LOL:

My point is that it is the "leftness" (read here as "socialism") or rightness (read here as "fascism") of a totalitarian state matters much. Under a totalitarian state, much evil happens, and in the worst cases, massive loss of life of that state's populace.

I did say that the NSDAP (Nazi) "socialism" was but another flavour of a statism that seeks to supplant God from His throne and replace it with the organs of state, and the Commandments of God with the arbitrary and tyrannical laws of a select few elites - just as socialism tends to do in most countries held in its thrall.

I still stand by my argument that even though Nazism or Fascism were not of a Communist/Marxist/Leninist/Red/Red/Red flavour, they were still as tyrannical and murderous as the most Red Stalinistic regimes that ever disgraced this planet. Again, I say look at Imperial Japan following the decline of the Taishō Emperor; following the accession of young Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito) in 1925, there were several coup attempts by extremes of left and right, until the ultra-rightists - particularly the Imperial Japanese Army - clamped down on common citizen, nobles, and even cowed the zaibatsu (giant interconnected family corporations) into submission.

Technically Imperial Japan in the early Shōwa era (1925-1945) was a fascist state, but one which preached on lifting the needs of the state above that of the individual - much as Stalin preached during his "great patriotic war" which saw some 37 million Russians and non-ethnic Russian Soviet minorities murdered.

Perhaps then, I was wrong: I would have done better to describe the symphony of extremes by both left and right "statist totalitarianism" rather than try to ping on the word "socialism".

The difference between the Nazis and Sozis (who were truely "socialist" in the Marxist sense) was in terms of who would have had the power, and which sets of elites would have benefitted, with minor differences in how it impacted on the engines of business and economy:

The Nazis did in fact, assert control over Big Business, by allowing pro-Nazi businesses to continue operating with considerable degree of input, if not a controlling input. This is quite close to a Command Economy, with government co-opting the production capacity instead of allowing the market forces to run things. Hitler's Volkswagen is an example of this, as well as turning Krupp from making kitchen appliances to building U-boats.

The Sozis would have likely gone on to collectivize all industry and agriculture along the Soviet model, and still would maintain control of all of it via a Command Economy. The Sozis for their part might not have been as quick to go to war, but in all likelyhood, they would have been a floodgate for Communists to expand their dominion throughout Europe, to say nothing of keeping that great economic engine mired in the morass of a "worker's paradise" for several generations or longer.

However, as with any two (or more) power-hungry institutions vying for top billing in the nation's power structure, once one is well on the way to succeeding, or actually enthroned, it wastes no time in crushing all dissenting voices, and killing anyone that might threaten that status quo.

I fail to see how that is happening yet in the USA... but I do fear for the rise of the permanent unitary leadership of the Democrat Party that seems quite ready to borrow from the pages of Stalin and Mao to secure its place.

Bush and the GOP may have made the mistake of loosening the restraints that prevent tyrants from acceeding to power in the USA, but they were relatively restrained in practice.

As for these allegations of torture, far, far worse things happen in our prison system, with inmates systematically subjected to interracial rape, beatings by corrupt guards, and other things which if brought to light, would make Abu Gharaib look fairly moderate or even good by comparison.

[Angry Red Badger]

Um... Fred. Try reading the rest of my post earlier. There is substantially more than car batteries.

But if you want to whittle down everything to "pictures of torture from Abu Garab", then belittle interogated prisoners because the torture they suffered wasn't mean enough for you, then the absolute height of "Photographic Proof of The Bush Administration's Pro-Torture Policy" was one guy standing hooded and spread eagle hooked up to car batteries.

I'm sorry for you if this isn't "good enough". If you need America to committ a more henious act of brutality than electrocution, or the murders at Hadditha, or prisons of Gitmo before you drop your support for your political heros, then you're right. We're at an end. There is literally nothing this Administration could do that would bleed them of your support and I pity your poor misbegotten soul.